Dr. John VanDeursen

Matthew Bouffard pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of his infant daughter, Isabelle, who died at 27 days old from head injuries and suffered numerous other severe injuries including broken ribs, fractured clavicles, and fractured vertebrae.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the profound abuse of parental trust, the vulnerability of the victim, and the multiple, severe injuries inflicted over time.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and mental health issues.

The Crown sought an eight-year sentence, and the defence sought five to six years.

The court imposed an eight-year penitentiary sentence, with 15 months of credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, resulting in a remaining sentence of six years and nine months.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the appellant's ongoing disability was due to a pre-existing schizoaffective disorder rather than the accident.

The arbitrator agreed, finding the accident's material contribution to the disability ended by August 2001, and dismissed claims for various assessment expenses.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decisions, finding no error of law in the arbitrator's evaluation of the medical evidence, the impact of the appellant's pre-existing condition, or the rejection of assessment expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits and medical/rehabilitation expenses.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant's disability was due to a pre-existing schizoaffective disorder rather than the accident.

The arbitrator found that the trauma of the accident triggered an episode of the applicant's pre-existing psychiatric illness, entitling him to income replacement benefits for a limited period.

Claims for various assessments were largely dismissed, save for one functional capacity evaluation.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's termination of benefits was not unreasonable given the complex medical evidence.

The insurer sought a stay of arbitration under section 50(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule until the applicant attended a psychiatric examination under section 42.

The applicant argued the examination was unreasonable because the insurer had already terminated her income replacement benefits based on physical assessments and had acted in bad faith.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had placed her psychological condition in issue by submitting a psychologist's report indicating she was disabled due to psychological impairments.

The arbitrator held that the requested examination was reasonably required and ordered the applicant to attend the assessment before proceeding to arbitration on her income replacement benefits claim.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently developed severe psychological problems, including delusions and paranoia.

He applied for income replacement benefits, which the insurer denied on the basis that his psychological condition was pre-existing and not caused by the accident.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was a 'thin-skulled' individual whose vulnerable defences were overwhelmed by the accident, establishing causation.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits, but his claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer had not unreasonably delayed or withheld benefits.